Pierre Pettigrew and his Chaffeur

[LotusLandLunatic]

It was inevitable that the suggestion he was along for "companionship" would arise, and the ministers's sexuality cannot be divorced from that given the gender of the chaffeur.

Remember Joy MacPhail?

How she once famously mused about having "platonic mind-sex" with federal cabinet minister Pierre Pettigrew, an event, according to Ms. MacPhail, that would be "very gratifying."

Little did she know.

[Shakeyhands]

this is a pretty disgusting thread and those redneck homophobes that are making this a matter of Pettigrews sexuality, whatever it may be, should be: 2) ashamed of themselves and 2) banned from this site for showing their true colours.  Disgusting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you have to include "redneck homophobes" in your post? Why not just "members"? It's pretty ironic that in a post where you complain about the bigotry of others and call for bannings you would choose to include your own slurs, and thereby risk your own exile.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are quite correct. I withdraw it.

[August1991]

What's disgusting to me is that the media is applying a different standard in this case than they would if the subject of the rumours was a heterosexual politician. One could argue that the issue is the misuse of taxpayer funds, not the sexual angle, however we know from history that a politician faces extreme scrutiny if there's reason to suspect that personal relations are an element of the story-- ask Art Eggleton.

... or Francis Fox or Robert Coates or God knows who else.

I agree with Kimmy's take on this issue. First, it is the money not the sexual aspect. Second, I think there is a bizarre double standard at play.

Pettigrew won Papineau with 16,892 against the BQ candidate's 16,424. (She was a student who worked at Dunkin' Donuts). It is very unlikely Pettigrew'll win this time - check this.

Seeing the writing on the wall, I think he tried to get a position in the OAS without success.

Pettigrew was recently criticized for disappearing to his flat in Paris during various world events. He claims he bought it before going into politics in 1996.

But then, Pettigrew recently made a big splash at a Liberal convention and on R-C by attacking les separatisses.

The idea that he would take his chauffeur abroad to drive is absurd. When abroad, the Ambassador's driver or the host country's limo would be used - someone who knows the city well. I wonder why he didn't just issue the guy a "Special Advisor" business card and leave it at that. I also wonder how this got out - perhaps the driver pissed someone off. Or maybe Pettigrew is playing passive-aggressive to get a posting somewhere, trying to curry favour with speeches but being an embarassment too. God knows.

In any case, there is a fin de regime smell to this mini-scandal - except there's no fin because the Liberals will get re-elected.

In a related note:

Le ministre canadien de l'Immigration, Joe Volpe, aurait dépensé quelque 11 000 $ en repas en une période de seulement deux mois et demi, entre mars et mai derniers.

De plus, en mars, il est parvenu à souper à deux endroits différents, au même moment et aux frais des contribuables canadiens.

La Presse

I haven't seen this in English. Joe Volpe (immigration minister) spent $11,000 in restos in 10 weeks and furthermore, he managed to eat two meals at the same time in two different places. (How much does Volpe weigh?)

My point is that the Liberals are tired, out of ideas and the only thing they can do is (literally) put their head in the trough. They don't care anymore.

[Shakeyhands]

Divided up it actually is pretty reasonable. I take customers out for lunch and dinner quite often and the bills are regualrily into the $400 to $500 range...

Volpe, staffers spent almost $7,000 for 31 meals

CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA — Immigration Minister Joe Volpe was just doing his job when he billed taxpayers nearly $7,000 for restaurant meals during a 11-week period last spring, his spokesman says.

A government website shows Volpe was reimbursed $6,880.70 for 31 meals between March 3 and May 17.

Four of his aides paid for another eight meals with him and passed the sum of $4,010.45 on to taxpayers.

Two members of Volpe's staff, including communications director Steven Heckbert, billed taxpayers for different working dinners with him on the same day.

The bill may look excessive, acknowledged Heckbert, but he said the minister has more than one responsibility that requires him to meet with many people.

"He is the Ontario political minister and, as such, he has a variety of meetings that he has with his fellow cabinet colleagues."

Volpe also meets regularly with people interested in Ontario issues and is the federal minister responsible for the Greater Toronto Area, Heckbert said.

Entire Article

[Canuck E Stan]

"My point is that the Liberals are tired, out of ideas and the only thing they can do is (literally) put their head in the trough. They don't care anymore."

With the Liberals at 40% at the polls,we'll show Martin by forcing the Liberals to govern this country wheither they want to or not. That will teach them to try and weasel out of their responsibilities. They can try to get out governing by scandals,poor accountability,waste and a bunch of other things,but hey, we'll make them govern forever if we have to.

[Argus]

Divided up it actually is pretty reasonable.  I take customers out for lunch and dinner quite often and the bills are regualrily into the $400 to $500 range...

Volpe, staffers spent almost $7,000 for 31 meals

Let me tell you something about hospitality rules in the federal government. They have really clamped down on them. For civil servants, anyway. I know managers who routinely sign off on a $100k service purchase but can't sign for a ten dollar restaurant meal.

Last year the group assigned to prepare staff day went through somersaults trying to keep the food/refreshments bill down below $3,000 - for 250 people in an all day speech and workshop session. That's because anything over that amount has to go all the way up to the assistant deputy minister for approval. My director, who has a $75 million budget, can't approve a hospitality charge of more than $500 - including gst. And alcohol is absolutely verboten under any circumstances.

And then we get the political leaders, who put these rules in place - to prevent another Radwanksi (who was a political appointee to begin with) gorging themselves on fine wines and 8 course dinners in 5 star restaurants with their aides and pals - again and again and again. At our expense.

Just another example of what two-faced hypocrites the Liberals are.

[August1991]

The basic story here is that some poor schmuck in Peterborough, earning around $50,000, filled out his 2004 tax form and wrote a cheque (or had deducted from his pay) about $10,000. Joe Volpe then took that money and, in a few weeks, spent it in restaurants.

Before becoming a minister, Joe Volpe was just a guy - no different from your neighbour down the street. And when Joe Volpe is no longer a minister, he'll once again be just a guy. Heck, that's what Joe Volpe is now - just a guy.

[Riverwind]

And then we get the political leaders, who put these rules in place - to prevent another Radwanksi (who was a political appointee to begin with) gorging themselves on fine wines and 8 course dinners in 5 star restaurants with their aides and pals - again and again and again. At our expense.

The private sector is rife with similar abuses (based on my experience). My theory is whenever someone is promoted to a level were they are no longer have to explain to a boss why a meal expense is legitimate then all ethics go out the window. There are many individuals who are able to keep their ethics even in the face of temptation, however, they are few and far between are a likely present in all political parties. Those who would abuse the system are also present in all political parties (the executives that I observed helping themselves to shareholder's money were ardent conservative supporters).

The worst thing about these stories is the public outcry does not stop the abuses because the 'solutions' just make life miserable for people like Argus who probably would have been reasonable in the first place.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

And then we get the political leaders

....

Just another example of what two-faced hypocrites the Liberals are.

You had it right the first time... Who wouldn't be surprised to see the fox get fat guarding the henhouse? The main reason Canadian voters are so apathetic is they do not see 'politicians' in any other light, no matter what the party. Otherwise, people would be flocking to vote in the party that was known for NOT sticking their snout in the trough, or otherwise wasting it. The people would say, "Hey, let's vote for the party that doesn't accept kickbacks or graft, or vote themselves raises and expense tab increases at every opportunity, and vote for that party which puts the needs of the common person ahead of the wants of themselves..."

August1991,

And when Joe Volpe is no longer a minister, he'll once again be just a guy.

Sadly, nope. That is, if he had a brain in his head, he will still have contacts, and his fingers on the end on certain strings, that will be seen as 'value-able' to, at least a couple, private concerns.

[August1991]

The private sector is rife with similar abuses (based on my experience).

There is a fundamental difference bewteen the public sector and the private sector. The private sector gets money voluntarily. No one is forced to give money to Wal-Mart. The public sector gets money differently.

Believe me, the Joe Volpes of the Canadian world do not look for jobs with Wal-Mart. They look for government jobs, through the Liberal Party - preferably at the top. (An example? Sergio Marchi. Born in Argentina, he now lives very well in Switzerland thanks solely to his choice of the Liberal Party of Canada when he was a PoliSci student at York University in Toronto.)

The worst thing about these stories is the public outcry does not stop the abuses because the 'solutions' just make life miserable for people like Argus who probably would have been reasonable in the first place.

I agree, Sparhawk, this in fact is what happens.

Canada's political system fundamentally does not work. It suffers from multiple sclerosis. The signals are sent but are misinterpreted or not received. The reactions are not what the signal intended.

[Riverwind]

Canada's political system fundamentally does not work.  It suffers from multiple sclerosis.  The signals are sent but are misinterpreted or not received.  The reactions are not what the signal intended.

These problems are not unique to Canada and have nothing to with the 'political system' per se. I see the problem as a symptom of a greater social malaise where people think more about what their rights are and what 'society' owes them instead of what their responsibilities are and what they owe to the greater society.

[August1991]

These problems are not unique to Canada and have nothing to with the 'political system' per se.

In case you haven't noticed, Canadian federal politics have been in a serious mess for the past 40 years or so. All our PMs come from Quebec. Have you ever wondered why?

As to other countries, when Leftists say that democracy is better than the market because one-man one-vote is better than one-dollar one-vote, the Leftists fundamentally misunderstand collective decisions.

The issue of the next century or so will be better ways to make collective decisions. Markets are great, but they don't always work. Elections are a poor substitute, but the only one available for the moment.

[Riverwind]

These problems are not unique to Canada and have nothing to with the 'political system' per se.

In case you haven't noticed, Canadian federal politics have been in a serious mess for the past 40 years or so. All our PMs come from Quebec. Have you ever wondered why?

And all US presidents in the last 40 years have been white protestant men. Do you ever wonder why?

The Canadian federal system is functioning reasonably when compared to many other wealthy democratic countries. There are regional tensions in Britain like Canada. Race and religion create tensions in the US. Japan has been a one party state since WW2 ended. Some countries like New Zealand have made progress with reforming their institutions, however, not everyone is happy with the results.

Why do you keep trying to exaggerate the problems in Canada? Is it because you are trying to justify Quebec separation?

I don't mean to say that everything is fine, however, I think a lot of people complaining about the 'system' are doing so because the people they vote for don't get elected. If the people they wanted got elected then they would be perfectly happy with the 'system'.

You cannot reasonably argue that other countries are more 'unified' in their political views. The last US election was among the most divisive in a long time and left a lot of 'blue state' voters feeling like they don't belong in the US anymore. I don't see the 'alienation' of voters of in New York and California any different from the 'alienation' of voters in Quebec and Alberta.

That does not mean the problem should be ignored. I just bring up that example because I really disagree your assertion that there is something uniquely wrong with Canadian system.

[August1991]

And all US presidents in the last 40 years have been white protestant men. Do you ever wonder why?

(blah, blah)

That does not mean the problem should be ignored. I just bring up that example because I really disagree your assertion that there is something uniquely wrong with Canadian system.

White Protestant men? All from California?

Not only have our PMs come from Quebec since 1968, but all four of them have been white Catholic men. (OK, Clark and Turner were not from Quebec but they were white Catholic men, and they didn't last long.) (Turner was first elected in a Quebec riding.)

Sparhawk, if you don't think Canadian federal politics are weird, you must be on ecstasy.

[Argus]

The private sector is rife with similar abuses (based on my experience). My theory is whenever someone is promoted to a level were they are no longer have to explain to a boss why a meal expense is legitimate then all ethics go out the window.

There is always a boss. The problem with politicians is the boss isn't paying much attention. The boss doesn't seem to care. The boss accepts lies and theft and misuse of the taxpayer's money with a casual "what ya gonna do about it" shrug.

The boss is the electorate. Do you think Joe Volpe will be harmed in his next re-election run because of this? Not very likely. Most of those who will vote for him won't even know about it because they rarely read the papers anyway. Others will not care because they're voting for him because he's Italian, or Liberal, or whatever.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

And then we get the political leaders

....

Just another example of what two-faced hypocrites the Liberals are.

You had it right the first time... Who wouldn't be surprised to see the fox get fat guarding the henhouse? The main reason Canadian voters are so apathetic is they do not see 'politicians' in any other light, no matter what the party. Otherwise, people would be flocking to vote in the party that was known for NOT sticking their snout in the trough, or otherwise wasting it. The people would say, "Hey, let's vote for the party that doesn't accept kickbacks or graft, or vote themselves raises and expense tab increases at every opportunity, and vote for that party which puts the needs of the common person ahead of the wants of themselves..."

If the electorate paid attention, and punished those who got out of line, then this sort of behaviour would cease. It's pointless to assume all politicians are like this. They WILL be, so long as such behaviour isn't punished. Will the Tories be like this? To some extent, perhaps, though I Harper does not strike me as a man likely to put up with this sort of thing - at least, less likely than Martin - corporate millionaire that he is.

But the answer is that the individual voter should look at how their MP has behaved. If they know their MP has gone on a lot of junkets, vote against them. If their MP is in cabinet, pay attention to how they're spending our money. If you think they're taking your money for granted, vote against him. If all the voters behave like that this sort of thing would stop.

[shoop]

If the electorate paid attention, and punished those who got out of line, then this sort of behaviour would cease. It's pointless to assume all politicians are like this. They WILL be, so long as such behaviour isn't punished. Will the Tories be like this? To some extent, perhaps, though I Harper does not strike me as a man likely to put up with this sort of thing - at least, less likely than Martin - corporate millionaire that he is.

But the answer is that the individual voter should look at how their MP has behaved. If they know their MP has gone on a lot of junkets, vote against them. If their MP is in cabinet, pay attention to how they're spending our money. If you think they're taking your money for granted, vote against him. If all the voters behave like that this sort of thing would stop.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alas the electorate doesn't pay attention to things like this in general.

This may be an issue in Pettigrew's riding, if he runs again.

Who knows what will happen in the general. Hopefully Harper puts forth a very ambitious agenda....

[Riverwind]

There is always a boss. The problem with politicians is the boss isn't paying much attention. The boss doesn't seem to care. The boss accepts lies and theft and misuse of the taxpayer's money with a casual "what ya gonna do about it" shrug.

Once someone gets into executive positions in companies the 'boss' is frequently a do nothing board of directors or the shareholders. Private sector executives get away with exactly the same behavior for exactly the same reasons - i.e. there is no single person who is responsible for preventing such abuses from happening.

At some level, this kind of behavior is typical a result of the society we live in where responsibility and duty are less important than entitlement and self-gratification. I believe that if you choose random people from the electorate and handed then a ministers portfolio than 90% of them would think nothing of taking advantage of the 'perks' of the office. My guess is about 20% of the them would be able to justify abuses similar to what Volpe and Pettigrew are accused of.

I think the a big part of the reason voters don't throw politicians like that out is they subconsciously know that if they were in that position they would do the same.

What could change that would be a PM who made personal integrity and responsibility a priority _and_ had the charisma to motivate those around him/her to do the same. I am not sure Harper has either (he sounds a lot like Chretien making a big deal about limos and such before he took office and his conduct in the Grewal affair demonstrated a willingness to use situational ethics). Clearly Martin is not any better - but those two are the only reasonable options available to the Canadian voter.

[August1991]

Once someone gets into executive positions in companies the 'boss' is frequently a do nothing board of directors or the shareholders. Private sector executives get away with exactly the same behavior for exactly the same reasons - i.e. there is no single person who is responsible for preventing such abuses from happening.

Sparhawk, the only way someone in the private sector could get away with spending $1000 in a restaurant is if it delivered more than $1000 to shareholder value. This is generally measurable and there are many financial analysts doing precisely that. What do you think all those people involved in financial markets do exactly?

Heck, we don't have to look at financial markets. We only have to look at the restaurants where Volpe ate. I'll bet their managers knew exactly how to give Volpe the occasional perk or freebie.

----

I don't think all governments are this bad. In a "normal" country, the Liberals would have been booted out by now. The fact this crew is still in power has more to do with our regional gridlock than the ignorance of Canadian voters.

[Riverwind]

Sparhawk, the only way someone in the private sector could get away with spending $1000 in a restaurant is if it delivered more than $1000 to shareholder value.  This is generally measurable and there are many financial analysts doing precisely that.  What do you think all those people involved in financial markets do exactly?

Delivering 'shareholder value' is a sop used to justify everything from obscene pay/benefit packages for C level executives to $1000 meals. Your suggestion that financial analysts hold companies to account is ridiculous. How many money losing companies still pay their executives bonuses? How many times have incompetent CEOs been 'fired' but are still given multi-million dollar severance packages? The ex-CEO of CIBC got over 50 million in bonuses a week before CIBC announced a settlement for 2.5 billion with SEC over complicity in the Enron scandal. Where is the ethics is that? Did the CIBC stock go down because people were disgusted with the 'ethics' shown by the board?

The fact is the financial industry is even worse than the Canadian voter at punishing those who abuse of government/company money for personal gain. In fact, I believe most politicians (even Liberal ones) are paragons of integrity compared to a typical company executive.

This is one of the reasons why I say it is problem with our society not a problem with our political system or a particular political party. And the problem will definately not be solved by voting in a different bunch of politicians.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk,

'Delivering shareholder' value is a sop used to justify everything from obscene pay/benefit packages for C level executives to $1000 meals. Your suggestion that financial analysts hold companies to account is ridiculous. How many money losing companies still pay their executives bonuses?

Look at Milton and Air Canada...making millions a year while taking the company down the toilet with bad decisions, yet expecting (and knowing) that the feds will bail him out again and again...

[August1991]

The fact is the financial industry is even worse than the Canadian voter at punishing those who abuse of government/company money for personal gain. In fact, I believe most politicians (even Liberal ones) are paragons of integrity compared to a typical company executive.

This is where I will part ways with you Sparhawk, and I'll blame in part the CBC. (It's business reporting is absolutely atrocious.)

The perspective of people who have little knowledge of the business world is that "suits" are "thieves" and the stock market is just another horse race. Corporations are evil entities.

People buy and sell shares everyday. If a publicly listed company doesn't deliver the goods, it won't be publicly listed for long. It can be argued that the smartest, greediest people in the world are watching all of this like hawks and competing with one another to grab any advantage. Why? Because they directly benefit from buying the correct shares, just as a restaurant owner directly benefits from giving a perk to certain customers.

Voters in elections have no comparable incentive to choose the right candidate.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying democracy is bad. I'm just saying that it's not as good as a functioning market when we have to make a collective decision.

[Argus]

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

[Riverwind]

This is where I will part ways with you Sparhawk, and I'll blame in part the CBC.  (It's business reporting is absolutely atrocious.)

You should not assume that I get all of my news from one source. Stories of the 'theft' of shareholder money by CEOs for personal gain come from all media sources. I have also observed this behaviour first hand. Keep in mind there is a fine line between 'perks of the job' and 'theft'. I also find it difficult to distinguish between treating a potenial customer to an extravagant dinner and an outright bribe. Ethically they are the same from my perspective.

The perspective of people who have little knowledge of the business world is that "suits" are "thieves" and the stock market is just another horse race.  Corporations are evil entities.

The is a difference between saying corporations are inherently evil and saying that many of the players in the system take advantage of it for personal gain.

People buy and sell shares everyday.  If a publicly listed company doesn't deliver the goods, it won't be publicly listed for long.

That is my point. An executive can be the biggest thief in the world and nothing is wrong with that as long as shareholders get 'enough' value despite the fact that the shareholders would get even more value if the CEO was less extravangant.

So which is it? Should CEOs be expected to spend every cent wisely and be punished for failing to do so? Or should they be allowed to 'steal' company money as long as the sums are small compared to over all worth of the company?

The fact is most people in the finanical industry feel it is acceptable to allow such abuses as long as the benefits of allowing the executive to stay in place outweigh the disadvantages. I think Canadian voters continue to support the Liberals for the same reason. If you believe that means the Canadian voter is 'ignorant' then I argue the same label applies to people in financial industry who use the same logic.

[Canuck E Stan]

"plausible deniability,"

What ever happened to having meetings at the office?